Since when did politics get so sexy?

Reading an LA Times article about sexuality in the '08 elections, I am feeling extremely uncomfortable. From the photo gallery featuring the infamous Al & Tipper kiss to a photo of the Clinton's that should only be in their private albums, where did the issues go?

Obviously, this isn't the kind of thing that will take the lead story on nightly news, but it's not going to go away any time before November, 2008. We've all seen the email chains comparing the ugliest pictures of democratic women against glowing photos of Ann Coulter and Laura Bush in prime lighting, so it's nothing new to note the sexuality of political women and wives.

In this long, hot (interesting choice of word) campaign season, intimations of sexuality are sprouting like wildflowers along the road to the White House. Not that the commingling of sex and politics is anything new, but for what seems to be the first time in memory, voters are being confronted with questions that don't usually break the surface: Just how sexy is a first lady allowed to be? And what constitutes an appropriate display of affection between candidates and their spouses?

Why are we thinking about how sexy the first lady should or shouldn't be? Is that relevant to the voter's choice?

With a nominating field full of older men and younger wives, experts say that a youthful, even sexy wife offers a none-too-subtle message about the vitality of the candidate.

Interestingly enough, this is really the first time I've put the line-up together. On their own, you hone in on the obvious age gap b/t Jeri and Fred Thompson, and probably don't even realize who Cindy McCain is because we never see her.
But honestly, I have only looked at the male candidates and thought of their age individually -questioning their stamina for the office, only an afterthought. President Bush obviously does as a man in his 60's, but he's a special case and the picture of health. Some of these men just look haggard. I hadn't considered their wives...

"What's going on reflects what's happening in the larger culture, a culture increasingly focused on young, attractive women and blatant sexuality, on display for all to appreciate," said Elizabeth Sherman, a political sociologist and Democrat who is married to former Republican Rep. Mickey Edwards of Oklahoma. "The candidate's wife is a strategic asset. How are you going to deploy that asset?"

Alright, back it up. Asset like Laura Bush's approval rating stays high despite her husbands. Asset like Eleanor Roosevelt was in promoting the New Deal. Asset like the projects and focus of the First Lady only increase the positive attention and reputation of the federal government's most powerful office -and add to our society as a whole. But as a sexual object asset? I hope no male candidate is thinking of "deploying his sexy-wife asset."

McCain is 18 years older than Cindy, Giuliani 11 years older than Judith. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, a Democratic hopeful, is 18 years older than his wife, Jackie. The prize for greatest age gap, however, goes to Democratic contender Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, who is 31 years older than his 29-year-old wife, Elizabeth.

Has anyone ever seen Elizabeth Kucinich? Anyone? Also, notice who isn't mentioned? The focus here, though the article tries to be independent, is on the older Republican panel of candidates: Giuliani, Thompson, McCain. (Hmmm, thinking about such conflicts among the traditional, conservative GOP base...)

But in a world obsessed with appearance and sexuality, even presidential campaigns are offering something to sate our national appetite for the superficial. To paraphrase the old Jell-O campaign, there's always room for cleavage.

Cleavage, really? Does the public notice the cleavage aspect, and more importantly, how do the voters perceive these marital unions? Candidates like O'Bama, Edwards, Huckabee, and Romney appear to have(I believe they actually do) a deep love and respect for their closer-in-age wives who also appear to have their own hidden sexuality, confidence, and supportive intelligence in the girl-next-door way. (That's not to say the other candidates don't love their wives, it's just a different image that's presented.)

At the polling place, does a voter look at the candidate as a couple- as a "we" making promises to America? I have only thought about their spouses when watching TV ads, or in the subconscious up until this point.

Politics experts often say that a candidate's spouse is a negligible factor in helping voters choose a president. But that may be changing, said Sherman. "A candidate's spouse has to be a positive enhancement. If not, at least do no harm. The way things are sliced today, 1% here, 2% there can make a big difference. One false move can destroy your whole campaign."

I would hope the candidates' wives would desire not to be 1 or 2% if it's based on their sexuality and the vitality they help their man to possess. But who am I to judge? Maybe Republicans don't care about age difference in spouses or age in their presidential candidates. My grandparents are 10 years apart, and marriages within my family range from 1 month to 18 years difference to younger women. But what about those with multiple past marriages, new younger wives, and these hot, sexual first lady candidates? Does the GOP scoff at men who leave their wives for younger women? I bet some women do, as the ultimate fear come to life on the pedestal of our nation's leader - being left in older age for young chickies.

But female issues aside, I prefer the picture of a solid supportive First Lady in sharp women like Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, Nancy Reagan, Jacqueline Kennedy - oozing class -women who I'm sure influence(d) their husbands in the bedroom too. But more in the "put down your book, let me tell you what I think about all this" kind of way. I prefer my first ladies in a nice suit or ballgown for a state dinner, not stilettos and low-cut lingerie-showing attire for the latest Harper's Bazaar interview. I guess I'm just old school.

Thoughts on a lazy weekend

Movie: Hairspray - Fantastic.
Movie: No Reservations - Cute chick-flick, although may appeal to 65 year old men (evident by the other movie-goer in my row).
Seeing a movie by yourself when you're in the mood for a popcorn, a small Icee and a good cry or laugh - join the club.
Rent movie: Rocky III - ultimate favorite of the series.
August cleaning of the house & closet - a must do.
Selling lightly used belongings in Ebay -(Singing) Money, money, money, money. Money!
Sleeping in - necessary.
Gas prices - unnecessary.
Cuddling with your pet on the couch with the threat of rainy skies outside - nothing better.
Lazy weekend - Priceless!

A stampede of woolly mammoths is imminent!

We all know about global warming, and some blogs, including mine have mentioned the "global cooling" crisis of the 70's as a counter argument, hinting that the media and politicians have blown global warming out of proportion simply to rile the public. This is another article discussing the topic and past Newsweek articles about global temperatures.

In April, 1975, in an issue mostly taken up with stories about the collapse of the American-backed government of South Vietnam, NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster...well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling.

But in any case, climatologists now are mostly agreed that human impacts will swamp the effects of the Milankovitch cycles (the earth's heating and cooling). The question has been, which specific impacts?

In the mid-1970s, scientists were focusing on an increase of dust and "aerosols" (suspended droplets of liquid, mostly sulfuric acid) in the atmosphere. These, the result of increased agriculture and burning of coal in power plants, lower the Earth's temperature by reflecting sunlight back into space.

Hmmm, farmers and power plants were to blame in the '70s. Did we stop our agricultural way of life? Hardly.

Ironically, clean-air laws in North America and Europe had the effect of reducing aerosols (which cause acid rain), so the predominant influence on climate now is the buildup of carbon dioxide—which traps the Earth's heat in the lower atmosphere and contributes to global warming.

And CO2 also eats away at the ozone, allowing more sun to get in, burn us all and damage our Earth. Yeah yeah. Smoking is bad for you too.

The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the tools scientists have at their disposal now—vastly more data, incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated mathematical models—render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph of communism.

So who's to say that in 10, or even 30 more years, we won't have more advanced instruments and incredibly different data in the opposing direction, once again? I agree with Senator Imhof:

The implication he draws is that if you're not worried about being trampled by a stampede of woolly mammoths through downtown Chicago, you don't have to believe what the media is saying about global warming, either.

On, Wisconsin, On!

From one Badger to another- Scott Van Pelt gets it RIGHT!


WHO'S READY FOR BADGER FOOTBALL??

Lady gets pissed when Romney doesn't buy pie

Not quite what happened, but this interesting video shows Governor Mitt Romney on the campaign trail, stopping at a diner, making some jokes, and talking about health care.

I have a few qualms- the first being with the woman this report features at the beginning.

The husband's got two jobs and she's got three kids with problems, her youngest son has ADD. (Well, does he really need to be shot up with meds for that? I'll save my posting on unnecessarily medicating children for later.) But don't talk to me about copayments and medicine Rx bills. My job doesn't provide health insurance for me either, lady. I'm 23 years old and getting started. I pay my own premiums and a co-pay everytime I see the doctor. And I pay over $160 for 9 little pills for migraine headaches. Do you think anybody has pity on me? No. And guess what else? I pay that every time I refill. I may not work at a diner for little more than tips, but believe it or not that's actually a considerable chunk of change out of my monthly check.

I like Romney's mood here and how he handles her practically berating him- in fact, I may be slightly impressed. In MA, healthcare he explains-

"They're Private. And we get to choose the policy we like... You get to pay for the policy you want."

He continues and it's almost absorbing - especially his quick-on-his-heels thinking to explain income levels and help people do receive from the government. I appreciate the

"Is it perfect? No. Could it be better?...probably."

He's right to say MA could be a model for others and they'll work to make it better. (I also think he's right to tell her to shut up and let him finish his answer!)

Can you believe they found in Massachusetts that it cost more to hand out healthcare for free? Mitt, you don't say!!

Secondly, I appreciate Romney's quick answer to "Hillary's plan":

"I didn't like her plan, you see it was a government plan."

Thank you, Governor. I don't like her plan either.

The sob story at the end? Incredibly pathetic. "He was in here for what, an hour...that's money off my tables," she whines. I bet she made more that hour- or the hour after I should say- from all the folks that showed up to see Romney and actually stayed for coffee, a slice of pie or a cup of soup.

So in answer to her question to all the candidates, "what are you gonna do for me?" I have a suggestion. Quit crying over what the government isn't giving you and figure out what you can do to help yourself! Your sick kids will thank you in the end.

Still a waffler

If you've read this blog you know that when Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) do the wrong thing I ridicule them for it. Conversly, when they do the right thing I believe they should be recognized. Today John Kerry did the right thing.

Mark Green is well qualified for the ambassadorship. Even Russ Feingold agreed. Despite Feingold's recommendation, a well as that of Wisconsin's Congressional delegation, John Kerry put a hold on the nomination. That was the wrong thing to do. Lifting the hold and allowing Mark Green to further serve his country as the ambassador to Tanzania is the right thing to do.

John Kerry...a flip-flopper 'til the end.

My latest public service announcement

Thinking about the 35-W bridge collapse in Minnesota, we've heard news reports on the list of bridges similar to it that need reinspection, the stories of how few deaths there have been and narrow escapes that were made, but nothing to educate the public if this ever happens to them.

I did some research and hope others will too - What to do to escape a sinking car:
There are lots of points, but these seem the most important:
1. Stay Calm
2. Open the window(s)
3. Unfasten your seatbelt
4. Exit through the window
5. Swim to safety

1. If your car suddenly goes into water, open your windows. You may only have seconds to do this, so it should be first priority.

2. It is unlikely you'll be able to open a car door once in water. The pressure will make this next to impossible. If the vehicle tips or turns, stay in your seated position.

3. If you are unable to open a window by handle or electronically, you have an other option. Break the window. Head toward the rear window or side windows- the front is not a viable option with it's laminate. Use a sharp pointed object, aim for a corner of the window, and strike it with as much force as possible. A metal flashlight, knife, screw driver, seatbelt buckle, even a pen may break the glass.

4. Finally, as a last option, you may be able to open the door. Wait until the car fills with water so the pressure on both sides of the door will be equal. Make sure your door is unlocked. As the car becomes completely filled, take a deep breath and hold it. Once the car is full, the door should be able to be opened. Exit from there.

Never go back in to a sinking vehicle, for any reason.

I hope some folks will learn the steps that could save their life.

Hey, I found a big submersible vessel over here...

A "bizarre submersible vessel" found....

New York authorities were questioning three men found in a bizarre submersible vessel floating just off Manhattan on Friday, according to local reports.

The men were discovered early Friday near the cruise terminal in Brooklyn where the massive ocean liner The Queen Mary II is moored, ABC television reported on its website.

When asked about the incident, a police spokeswoman declined to confirm the report or provide any further information, saying only that officers were at the scene.

What the three men were doing in the vessel -- which appeared to be spherical with a circular hatch on top -- was not immediately clear.

According to ABC, there was no indication that the discovery was terror-related -- a constant fear in New York following the September 11 Al-Qaeda attacks on New York.

Bizarre indeed. Worrisome, even more so.

Michael Bublé - Everything

Is that Bono?

Joining the book club

At Barnes & Noble this evening I was verbally accosted by the cashier, harping on me to get a Member Card. She first asked when I approached the counter to pay, if I had one. I said no, thanks, that's alright. She asked again, reminding me I would save on each purchase if I applied for a Member Card. I said no thanks. Then, she berated me with questions about what I read, how often I buy books there, and tried to explain how much I'd save if I only had a Member Card. As she handed me my receipt, I learned that of my $73.14 purchase, I have 30 days in which I can still get a Member Card and save those $7.00. I just gave your store $73 lady! What more do you want?
People of the retail/service/sales industry- no means no! Though, perhaps now I'll consider getting a Crown Books member card.

What are we teaching our children?

We may not have Mickey Mouse teaching children to become radical suicide bombers as they do in the Middle East, but children's books like this are only furthering the divide between Blue and Red America. Is anyone else alarmed?

Why is Mommy a Democrat? According to Zilber, "Democrats make sure everyone always has enough to eat, just like Mommy does." And Republicans want people to starve, obviously!

Do we consider the opposing messages that can be inferred from lines as simple as these? From a well-versed children's book reader, a poet, and a former student of classical children's literature, I find this appalling. I find both sides - writing either Why Mommy is a Dem or Eek, there are Liberals Under my Bed (whichever it is)- extremely polarizing and leading the young impressionable minds of future generations away from reason and finding common ground with their peers.

What has happened to Roald Dahl, Shel Silverstein, The Berenstain Bears, Ramona Quimby series, Mark Twain's books, Dr. Suess, Beatrix Potter, all the classics with their moral stories? Even the younger picture books -Where the Wild Things Are, If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, Bedtime for Frances, and the Hungry Little Caterpillar are just some favorites that come to mind. Heaven forbid you have to read aloud to a child these days.

Think about the first grader sharing with his friend that his mom is a democrat because she wants to give people universal health care? The kid probably infers his mom wants to take care of people when they are sick, and everyone else's mom would rather see them die of their illness. This may be an exaggeration, but that's how kids' minds are. They go in directions we can't even follow sometimes, and it's all about "why".

What's this all for, anyway? Is it because in 2004, George W. Bush won the polls of 3rd graders in private schools when asked who should be President? A silly book like this isn't going to sway young tots toward a political party if their parents have anything to say about it, anyway. So why worry, right? Political persuasion and parenting choices will decide at the end of the day- and we'll see Republicans and conservatives leaning away from these books while the liberals and Democrats stock pile them for all their kids, cousins, and play group families. I'm afraid we'll further polarize parents when their child's -and their own -greatest worries shouldn't be the politics of their house, it should be their spelling test, math homework, play time, and getting to baseball or swim team practice on time.

[Zilber] also rejects claims that he's adding to a poisonous political culture. The word "Republican" is never mentioned in the book, although an elephant -- the symbol of the Republican party -- does squash a homeless man's park bench. He calls that "a little background mischief" for the adults to enjoy.

Interesting... a children's book written for adults. Maybe he's actually on to something. Maybe we need to spell out politics for the adults these days, who've all lost track of original thought and let political rhetoric fall down a sewer drain.

What about the other side? Is that going to be left up to Republicans?

Given his prior success, some people have suggested he sell out and work the other side of the aisle with "Why Mommy is a Republican."

That's not going to happen, Zilber said. "As a Democrat, I don't do things just for the money."

Hmmmmm....not for the money. So this is for....?

So, in the name of rising above a petty political argument, I'd like to propose other book titles, for all the children's authors out there, and some explanation for those of you without imagination:
Why I Am a Patriot
The American Flag, How the Stars got their Stripes
My Favorite Song- God Bless the USA - the lyrics matched to pretty pictures
My Friends are Red, White, and Blue - celebrating differences, but togetherness as Americans
What Happened at Church on Sunday - fun, mischevious look at kids on Sundays
The Great Midwest- An illustrated depiction of the plain states and the glory of America's farmers
and perhaps some politically motivated...
How Mommy and Daddy Came in Legally
Working Hard for the Money
No Food Stamps for US
Elephants are my Favorite Animal
Why Mommy won't name my baby sister Hillary

We've got to type fast, folks, or Kindergartners might start thinking their parents actually believe in God, country, personal responsibility, sanctity of marriage, legal immigration, and working instead of taking government handouts. They might not fit in with the kids who have Democrats for mommies.

Please pray

I'd like to put a call out for prayers for those in Minneapolis and elsewhere directly effected by the collapse of the 35W bridge there.

As I recall the emotions and worries of my day, as petty as they seem, I think we can all be reminded of the more important things in life in this time of unexpected tragedy.